Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judicial bias

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2026

WONG YO HO JAMES v. CLUB MARINA COVE LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1443
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA12/2026

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the intended grounds raise no question of law of arguable merit: the allegations of bias are unsupported and insufficient, privacy does not justify withholding medical records relied upon by the claimant, production of club rules was proper for context, hearsay admissibility is a matter of weight and case-management, and there is no basis to interfere with legitimate case-management decisions including refixing the part-heard trial.
10 Oct 2025

YAPE LIEZEL SUELTO v. LEE ALICE YU YING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4736
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA7/2023

The Presiding Officer applied an incorrect evidential approach by seeking independent corroboration rather than weighing the competing factual accounts on the balance of probabilities and failing to make findings whether the Defendant's evidence was accepted; that error of law warranted allowing the appeal, setting aside the award and remitting the matter for retrial before another presiding officer.
4 Mar 2025

香港特別行政區訴劉永阜及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2895
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA164/2024

On full re‑examination the court accepted the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings: contemporaneous multi‑point police observations, corroborating GoPro footage, expert speed calculations, vehicle registration records and admissions formed an interlocking body of evidence that reliably identified the vehicles and established competitive driving constituting illegal racing; the convictions and concurrent sentences were therefore safe and were affirmed.
13 Jan 2025

SUCCESS LANE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FERGURSON HONG KONG LTD t/a NEW WORLD MILLENNIUM HONG KONG HOTEL

Citation

[2025] HKDC 46
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2191/2023

Leave to appeal refused because the plaintiff's grounds have no reasonable prospect of success, are barred by binding Court of Appeal judgments, and the judge's exercise of discretion on costs and on summary assessment was within the wide range of acceptable outcomes and not plainly wrong.
3 Sept 2024

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 訴陸志榮

Citation

[2024] HKCA 834
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP134/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds were speculative, in many respects novel and not raised below, and did not show a realistic prospect of success or other compelling reason to hear the appeal; the trial judge acted within proper case management and discretionary bounds; costs were awarded to the respondent; and the filed originating summons was struck out.
13 Jun 2024

遠東汽車租賃有限公司對蔡鎣謍

Citation

[2024] HKCA 537
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP302/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were without merit and had no reasonable prospect of success: the trial judge’s factual findings that the defendant was the hirer and the agreement was in force were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; the promise to comply with rental terms constituted consideration; no evidence of judicial bias was produced.
10 May 2024

COOMBER, PETER JOHN v. LAU YIN HA, EVA (EVA LAU) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 440
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP292/2023

All summonses dismissed because the plaintiff failed to seek leave from the district judge before applying to the Court of Appeal and failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to justify direct application; alternatively, the intended grounds of appeal (procedural impropriety and bias) and the substantive claims were without merit, frivolous or an abuse of process, and costs awarded to defendants and summarily assessed.
20 Mar 2024

RE RESURRECCION MARYJANE YACAPIN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 281
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP224/2022

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under s22(1)(b) HKCFAO and advanced only bare allegations without particulars or evidence sufficient to show mistakes in the Court of Appeal's decision; there was no basis under the 'or otherwise' limb to grant leave and no need for an oral hearing.
19 Mar 2024

陳淑仁對賴俊光及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 251
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP254/2023

Extension refused because appellant failed to demonstrate any real prospect of success on appeal, failed to produce easily obtainable bank records despite directions (permitting adverse inference), offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay of approximately three months, and did not rebut the trial judge's credible factual findings; therefore discretionary extension of time was properly refused.
26 Feb 2024

OLENA PONOMAROVA v. NORTHCROFT HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 148
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP314/2023

The Plaintiff's grounds were not reasonably arguable and the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s14AA(4); the Judge's exercise of discretion on security for costs was not shown to be vitiated by any error of principle or bias, and the Plaintiff failed to adduce admissible evidence that the security order would stifle her claim, therefore leave to appeal was refused and the summons dismissed with costs.